• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Politico: Sanders campaign begins laying off staff

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ms.Galaxy

Member
I never fucking thought I'd see the day where progressives are spamming Fox News and Breitbart bullshit stories just because they are salty Bernie is losing.. I never want to hear anyone post that liberals are smarter and more educated. People who I agree with 90% of the time fall for the same nonsense as religious hicks from the south.

Aye, I have to agree with this. It's getting annoying that people on the left are screaming right wing attacks like benghazi and those emails against Hillary, even saying she is just as bad as any republican running. Blooming hell, Bernie said enough with the email bull and those BernieBros are going after Clinton with those emails. I'm shocked, really shocked.

I just don't get them, really. Even I, a 23 year old progressive, understand that progress in this nation is built from a foundation that we have to build from the local level then upwards, which takes some time to achieve. I understand that the president is not powerful enough to make these changes, that they need a congress that can work with them on these changes. I understand there's a need to compromise certain aspects to get the majority to agree, and these compromises can easily be reconsidered in a later time. From what I've seen, some of these people think the President has all the power in the nation, that change starts all the way on the top first and foremost, that compromise is a sign of weakness. That's my issues with them.
 

Cipherr

Member
Time is a flat circle.

rupMRSV.png


BdiTHek.png

Its beautiful. I especially love the new voters very clearly learning about Superdelegates back then just like this go around.
 

Khoryos

Member
So essentially voting Trump. If you're not voting to keep him out, you are voting to keep him in. There is no moral high ground when there are literally lives at stake.

So vote to bomb more Arabs, instead!

A null vote is a vote for the other side, dude.

If you do not vote, then that is one less vote FOR your party.

How hard is THAT to understand?

How hard is it for you to understand that people care more about ideology than the party name?

If you don't feel the democratic candidate represents your views, you shouldn't vote for them - same for republicans.
 
So vote to bomb more Arabs, instead!



How hard is it for you to understand that people care more about ideology than the party name?

If you don't feel the democratic candidate represents your views, you shouldn't vote for them - same for republicans.

What the fuck do you think Trump is going to do?

Hell he's said he'd murder the families of terrorists as a warning.
 

Ms.Galaxy

Member
So vote to bomb more Arabs, instead!



How hard is it for you to understand that people care more about ideology than the party name?

If you don't feel the democratic candidate represents your views, you shouldn't vote for them - same for republicans.

Do you honestly think Trump isn't going bomb more Arabs? Are we going to forget the fact he said we should carpet bomb the middle east? Or killing the families of terrorist too? I have a much better idea, how about we vote what will cause the least amount of deaths, both nationally and internationally.

Voting is the most selfless thing you can do for your fellow man. Doing so can change the very course of the nation and the world is certain cases. You can make it better or worse, it's your choice. However, if your idiology is more important than the greater good when it comes to this election, I have to ask why. Why should my life be endangered because people like you are being selfish because Bernie didn't win? Why should my boyfriend, who is born U.S. Citizen, be treated like shit because he's Mexican because of that? Why? Why do you refuse to vote for someone who's clearly the better option of the two and make life not as bad as the other, maybe even better, for minorities like me and my boyfriend?
 
What the fuck do you think Trump is going to do?

Hell he's said he'd murder the families of terrorists as a warning.

Do you honestly think Trump isn't going bomb more Arabs? Are we going to forget the fact he said we should carpet bomb the middle east? Or killing the families of terrorist too? I have a much better idea, how about we vote what will cause the least amount of deaths, both nationally and internationally.

Well, less than under Trump certainly who has announced his intention to deliberately target civilians to demoralise terrorists.

Damn we all had the same thought in one minute.
 

Khoryos

Member
You have a lot of nerve pretending to care about "Arabs" while voting Trump.

I'm not, I vote Corbyn. And if Trump *actually* gave the order to bomb civilians, that'd be a crime against humanity - you'd have a hard time finding enough people in the military to go along with an openly-ordered war crime.
 
I'm not, I vote Corbyn. And if Trump *actually* gave the order to bomb civilians, that'd be a crime against humanity - you'd have a hard time finding enough people in the military to go along with an openly-ordered war crime.

So basically fuck it let him win because the evil shit he wants to do might not happen. So let's take a chance.


Jesus.
 

Cerium

Member
I'm not, I vote Corbyn. And if Trump *actually* gave the order to bomb civilians, that'd be a crime against humanity - you'd have a hard time finding enough people in the military to go along with an openly-ordered war crime.

This right here is why the European left is dying and deservedly so.
 

Ms.Galaxy

Member
I'm not, I vote Corbyn. And if Trump *actually* gave the order to bomb civilians, that'd be a crime against humanity - you'd have a hard time finding enough people in the military to go along with an openly-ordered war crime.

Trust me, there's plenty of hyper patriotic conservative military men who would be happy to do it. Plus, they are trained, both physically and mentally, to obey the orders of their superior officers, which includes the President. They won't have an issue finding enough people to commit such a war crime. They just need a few dozen operated planes to start carpet bombing Syria. Also, Trump would be given the nuclear football, and only the president has the power whether or not to use it. I don't trust Trump with our nuclear arsenal.
 
Good ol' Rogernomics followed by the Nationals Ruthanasia. Man the 80's and 90's were weird.

Yup, reading back on that period is crazy. It does give me a lot of respect for Anderton though and on the bright side, it did eventually lead to Helen Clark taking over Labour.

I'm not, I vote Corbyn. And if Trump *actually* gave the order to bomb civilians, that'd be a crime against humanity - you'd have a hard time finding enough people in the military to go along with an openly-ordered war crime.

SMH. How'd that work out when they were torturing prisoners?
 

danm999

Member
I mean, didn't something like a third of Labour MPs vote with Cameron to bomb Syria? Didn't they initiate the invasion of Iraq under Blair? Didn't Milliband support the invasion of Libya?

Doesn't seem very ideologically consistent to me to continue voting for that party even if Corbryn is more of a dove.
 

Khoryos

Member
Yup, reading back on that period is crazy. It does give me a lot of respect for Anderton though and on the bright side, it did eventually lead to Helen Clark taking over Labour.



SMH. How'd that work out when they were torturing prisoners?

Did you see the president ordering them to commit a war crime live on TV? No? So they thought no-one would find out.
 

Khoryos

Member
I mean, didn't something like a third of Labour MPs vote with Cameron to bomb Syria? Didn't they initiate the invasion of Iraq under Blair? Didn't Milliband support the invasion of Libya?

Doesn't seem very ideologically consistent to me to continue voting for that party even if Corbryn is more of a dove.

We don't vote for a party, we vote for an MP - and the Labor representative for my constituency was opposed to the expansion of air strikes.
 

danm999

Member
We don't vote for a party, we vote for an MP - and the Labor representative for my constituency was opposed to the expansion of air strikes.

So you don't mind voting for a party that has a pretty hawkish record so long as your MP isn't the one who votes for it.

Why not simply vote for another party altogether?
 
You have a lot of nerve pretending to care about "Arabs" while voting Trump.
"Arabs" and Muslims (outside of America, Europe, the gulf countries, SEA and Turkey) are screwed no matter who becomes president. If you have to give them an order then Donald "murder terrorist families" Trump the is worst, followed by Hillary whose war hawk side could lead to another war and Bernie as last because he would prefer to leave military intervention as the very last resort. He'd probably continue to use the drone programs, though.
 

Cerium

Member
We don't vote for a party, we vote for an MP

This is a very misleading characterization of the British Parliamentary system. Political parties are much more centralized in the UK than they are in America, and individual MPs have much less autonomy than a US Senator.
 

Khoryos

Member
So you don't mind voting for a party that has a pretty hawkish record so long as your MP isn't the one who votes for it.

Why not simply vote for another party altogether?

After Blair launched the invasion of Iraq, I did - Lib Dems, in the hopes of getting AV through. Then, after they shat the bed and went back on every promise they made, I voted Green (despite my disagreements on the subject of nuclear power). But now Labour is shedding the "Third Way" New Labour philosophy and coming back to its roots, I feel they best represent me.

Holding the actions of previous iterations of a party against its current self isn't a smart idea - leads to people asking why Democrats would vote for a party that was pro-slavery.

(Also, you seem to have picked up a mistaken impression that I'm a pacifist - I'm not, I support military intervention in the right circumstances. I just don't think many interventions since Kosovo have met those circumstances.)
 

danm999

Member
After Blair launched the invasion of Iraq, I did - Lib Dems, in the hopes of getting AV through. Then, after they shat the bed and went back on every promise they made, I voted Green (despite my disagreements on the subject of nuclear power). But now Labour is shedding the "Third Way" New Labour philosophy and coming back to its roots, I feel they best represent me.

Holding the actions of previous iterations of a party against its current self isn't a smart idea - leads to people asking why Democrats would vote for a party that was pro-slavery.

(Also, you seem to have picked up a mistaken impression that I'm a pacifist - I'm not, I support military intervention in the right circumstances. I just don't think many interventions since Kosovo have met those circumstances.)

Fair enough. I'm a similar boat myself voting Labor in Australia; I can't bring myself to do it given their support for policies I consider inhumane, but I'm lucky enough to live under a preferential system where I don't have to worry about voting for a left wing party that would act as a spoiler.
 

BanGy.nz

Banned
Yup, reading back on that period is crazy. It does give me a lot of respect for Anderton though and on the bright side, it did eventually lead to Helen Clark taking over Labour.
I enjoy confusing foreigners with just how far right our left wings economic policies were in the 1980's. It's unthinkable now but they came uncomfortably close to instituting a flat tax.

Anyway back on topic,
It's going to be fun watching Sanders try reign in his surrogates in the coming weeks.
Fair enough. I'm a similar boat myself voting Labor in Australia; I can't bring myself to do it given their support for policies I consider inhumane,
Why do New Zealand's, U.K and Australia's Labor parties all suck at the moment? We've all tripped over themselves.
 

Khoryos

Member
Why do New Zealand's, U.K and Australia's Labor parties all suck at the moment? We've all tripped over themselves.

My belief is that it's something to do with "holding their noses" and electing people like Clinton or Blair over people like Sanders.
 

Maledict

Member
My belief is that it's something to do with "holding their noses" and electing people like Clinton or Blair over people like Sanders.

Yep. I mean, Blair's the only labour leader to win an election in over 30 years, and not only win but win a record breaking three times. But it's absolutely his fault labour are a mess. It's not like far left grumpy, bedraggled white hair academics haven't tried to win election in the UK before either. Michael Foot was an illusion!

/sarcasm

We on the left are as bad as our counterparts on the right sometimes. There is not a majority of far left voters in the UK to elect someone like Corbyn. Politics in this country is fought in the centre .Like it or not, you need a coalition to win, and the far left needs the centre left. It is better to get half a loaf than none at all. All ideological purity gets you is an empty stomach.

It's also worth pointing out that *no-one* was holding their nose and voting for Blair in 1997. The entire country was in party mood, and tactical voting to get the conservatives out took place at a level never seen before or since. Blair was openly welcomed by the press, the party and the general public because Labour finally had a leader who could win and actually deliver on what we wanted - which, for the most part, he did. Iraq unfortunately fucked everything else up, and subsequently he appears to have gone insane...
 

Khoryos

Member
We on the left are as bad as our counterparts on the right sometimes. There is not a majority of far left voters in the UK to elect someone like Corbyn. Politics in this country is fought in the centre .Like it or not, you need a coalition to win, and the far left needs the centre left.

Unfortunately, left parties have a bad habit of going from "Centre left" to "Centre" to "This used to be the Right".

You're right in that no-one was holding their nose first time around - didn't stay that way, though.
 
Did you see the president ordering them to commit a war crime live on TV? No? So they thought no-one would find out.
Actually, the CIA specifically wanted legal assurances from the Department of Justice that they weren't committing war crimes before they went full in on "enhanced interrogation", which they got with the torture memos. And while they were later rescinded by Obama and never recognized internationally, no participating American official was ever prosecuted. So torture was more or less de facto legal under the Bush administration.
 

esms

Member
A null vote is a vote for the other side, dude.

If you do not vote, then that is one less vote FOR your party.

How hard is THAT to understand?

I've been wondering this lately, now that the primary in my state is done, what if I'm not registered?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom